Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Atul Sreedharan, J.
Zarina Begum v. State of Madhya Pradesh through P.S. E.O.W
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 30933 of 2020 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 13.5.2021
(1) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 438 -- bail -- grundnorm of bail jurisprudence -- "bail and not jail" -- appears to have been forgotten -- Courts must remember that presumption is always of innocence -- denial of bail must be for exceptional reasons, justifiable on facts and circumstances of case. (1994) 4 SCC 260, (2014) 8 SCC 273, (2018) 3 SCC 22 and 2020 (1) JLJ 102 (SC) followed. (1977) 4 SCC 308 referred to. [Para 12]
(2) Judiciary -- district judiciary is bulwark against executive excess -- it is the first line of defence, and for a large number of citizens, perhaps the last -- existence of rule of law in State is reflected by responsiveness of district judiciary to matters relating to personal liberty and freedom of individual. [Para 21]
(3) Judiciary -- office of District Judge (Vigilance and Training) -- continues to have debilitating effect on independence and individuality of judges of district judiciary -- it would not render district judiciary less efficient if post is done away for good -- post is surplus age with potential to cow down judges of district judiciary -- continued existence of post is questionable. (1995) 5 SCC 457, (2007) 4 SCC 247 and (2019) 10 SCC 640 referred to. [Paras 24 & 25]
(4) Judiciary -- unfettered and fearless district judiciary -- importance cannot be underscored enough -- State like Madhya Pradesh with wide spread poverty, illiteracy and lack of resources -- only free, independent and fearless district judiciary can ensure that end user of justice system is given justice at very first level and does not have to move higher up hierarchy of Courts to get justice. [Para 29]
(5) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 438 -- bail -- directions issued to police and judicial magistrates to ensure that directions passed by Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar's case are scrupulously implemented and followed. (2014) 8 SCC 273 followed. [Paras 31 & 32]
(6) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 438 -- bail -- offences involving punishment of more than seven years' imprisonment -- no universal rule of thumb for grant of bail -- would defeat very purpose of bail law if bail were to be rejected only on account of offence being heinous -- would be reasonable to include in its ambit and scope such offences which shock conscience of reasonable person -- nature of evidence, antecedents of offender, circumstances in which offence was committed etc. also to be considered -- Courts must consciously exclude cacophony of hyper opinionated and unmoderated voices on social, print and electronic media -- public perception must never be a factor while deciding bail application -- prudent reasons ought to be given while deciding application for bail. [Para 33]
(7) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 438 -- bail -- factors to be considered while deciding application for bail -- laid down -- said considerations should be applied in reasonable and judicious manner based upon material on record -- must not be applied in pedantic manner only to deny benefit of bail -- unless application is withdrawn, reasons ought to be given to reflect prima facie appreciation of material for or against accused -- no undertrial ought to be kept in judicial custody inordinately -- stringent condition may be placed -- no rule of thumb can ever belaid down which must be followed in every case of bail -- discretion must be left to Court. [Paras 34 to 36]
(8) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 438 -- bail -- no legislative provision mandates disposal of bail application within fixed period of time -- ends of justice demand that it be done in shortest possible time. [Para 37]
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 438 & tekur & d¢ U;k; 'kkL= dk vkèkkj & ^^tsy ugha tekur^^ & foLe`r dk fn;k x;k çrhr g¨rk gS & U;k;ky;¨a d¨ ;g Lej.k j[kuk vko';d gS fd mièkkj.kk lnk fun¨Zf"kZrk dh g¨rh gS & tekur dh ukeatwjh ekeys d¢ rF;¨a v©j ifjfLFkfr;¨a esa U;k;¨fpr] vkiokfnd dkj.k¨a ls g¨uk vko';dA ¼1994½ 4 ,l lh lh 260] ¼2014½ 8 ,l lh lh 273] ¼2018½ 3 ,l lh lh 22 rFkk 2020 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 102 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½ vuqlfjrA ¼1977½ 4 ,l lh lh 308 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 12½
¼2½ U;k;ikfydk & ftyk U;k;ikfydk dk;Zikfydk d¢ vfrjsd d¢ fo#) j{kk lkèku gS & og çfrj{kk dh çFke iafDr gS rFkk cgqla[;kd ukxfjd¨a d¢ fy, laÒor% vafre gS & O;fDr dh nSfgd Lora=rk v©j Lokèkhurk ls lacafèkr fo"k;¨a esa ftyk U;k;ikfydk dh vuqfØ;rk ls jkT; esa fofèklEer & 'kklu dk vfLrRo çfrfcafor g¨rk gSA ¼iSjk 21½
¼3½ U;k;ikfydk & ftyk U;k;kèkh'k ¼lrdZrk v©j çf'k{k.k½ dk dk;kZy; & ftyk U;k;ikfydk d¢ U;k;kèkh'k¨a dh Lora=rk v©j oS;fDrdrk ij nqcZy cukus okyk çÒko tkjh gS & in d¨ lnk d¢ fy, lekIr dj fn;k tk, r¨ ftyk U;k;ikfydk n{krk de ugha g¨xh & in vuko';d gS] ftlesa ftyk U;k;ikfydk d¢ U;k;kèkh'k¨a d¨ Mjkus&èkedkus dk lkeF;Z gS & in dk fujarj vfLrRo vkifÙktud gSA ¼1995½ 5 ,l lh lh 457] ¼2007½ 4 ,l lh lh 247 rFkk ¼2019½ 10 ,l lh lh 640 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 24 ,oa 25½
¼4½ U;k;ikfydk & caèkueqDr v©j fuÒÊd ftyk U;k;ikfydk & egRo ij i;kZIr cy ugha fn;k tk ldrk & eè; çns'k tSls O;kid nfjærk okys] fuj{kjrk okys v©j lalkèkughu jkT; esa & eqDr] Lora= v©j fuÒÊd ftyk U;k;ikfydk }kjk gh ;g lqfuf'pr fd;k tk ldrk gS fd U;k; ç.kkyh d¢ y{; mi;¨Drk d¨ çFke Lrj ij gh U;k; çkIr g¨ rFkk mls U;k; ikus d¢ fy, U;k;ky;¨a d¢ mPprj Lrj¨a ij ugha tkuk iM+sA ¼iSjk 29½
¼5½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 438 & tekur & mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vjus'k dqekj d¢ ekeys esa ikfjr funs'k¨a dk fu"BkiwoZd dk;kZUo;u v©j vuqlj.k lqfuf'pr djus d¢ fy, iqfyl rFkk U;kf;d eftLVªV¨a d¨ funs'k tkjhA ¼2014½ 8 ,l lh lh 273 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 31 ,oa 32½
¼6½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 438 & tekur & lkr o"kZ ls vfèkd dkjkokl d¢ naM okys vijkèk & tekur dh eatwjh d¢ fy, d¨Ã loZO;kih O;kogkfjd fu;e ugha & ;fn tekur d¢oy blfy, ukeatwj dh tk, fd vijkèk tÄU; gS r¨ tekur lacaèkh fofèk dk ç;¨tu gh foQy g¨ tk,xk & mldh ifjfèk v©j O;kfIr esa ,sls vijkèk lfEefyr djuk ;qfDr;qDr g¨xk ftuls ;qfDr;qDr O;fDr dh var'psruk d¨ vkÄkr igqaps & lk{; dh çÑfr] vijkèkh d¢ iwoZo`Ùk] og ifjfLFkfr;ka ftuesa vijkèk fd;k x;k] vkfn ij Òh fopkj fd;k tkuk g¨xk & U;k;ky;¨a d¨ lkekftd] eqæ.k rFkk bysDVªkfud lapkj ekè;e¨a ij vfr&nqjkxzgh v©j vla;fer Loj¨a d¢ d¨ykgy d¨ ltxrk ls ckgj j[kuk gh pkfg, & tekur vkosnu fofuf'pr djrs le; dch Òh y¨dkuqÒwfr dkjd ugÈ g¨uk pkfg, & tekur d¢ fy, vkosnu fofuf'pr djrs le; cqf)eRrkiw.kZ dkj.k fn, tkuk pkfg,A ¼iSjk 33½
¼7½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 438 & tekur d¢ fy, vkosnu fofuf'pr djrs le; fopkj.kh; dkjd & vfèkdfFkr & mDr fopkj.kh; dkjd vfÒys[kxr lkexzh d¢ vkèkkj ij ;qfDr;qDr v©j U;k;laxr jhfr esa ykxw fd, tkuk pkfg, & d¢oy tekur d¢ Qk;ns ls oafpr djus d¢ fy, :f<+oknh jhfr esa ykxw ugha fd, tkuk pkfg, & vkosnu okil ugha fy;k x;k g¨ r¨] vfÒ;qDr d¢ i{k ;k foi{k esa lkexzh dk çFken`"V~;k ewY;kadu n'kkZus d¢ fy, dkj.k fn, tkuk pkfg, & fdlh Òh fopkj.kkèkhu O;fDr d¨ cgqr vfèkd le; rd U;kf;d vfÒj{kk esa ugha j[kk tkuk pkfg, & dM+h 'krZ j[kh tk ldrh gS & dÒh Òh ,slk d¨Ã O;kogkfjd fu;e vfèkdfFkr ugha fd;k tk ldrk ftldk vuqlj.k tekur d¢ çR;sd ekeys esa fd;k tkuk vko';d g¨A U;k;ky; d¢ ikl foosdkfèkdkj jguk vko';d gSA ¼iSjk 34 ls 36½
¼8½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 438 & tekur & tekur vkosnu dk fuiVkjk fu;r le; d¢ Òhrj fd;k tkuk fdlh Òh foèkk;h micaèk esa vkKkfir ugha & U;k;fgr dh vis{kk gS fd ,slk ;FkklaÒo vYier le; esa fd;k tk,A ¼iSjk 37½
ORDER
1. This application has been preferred by the applicant under section 438 Cr.P.C, in Crime No.95/2020 registered at P.S E.O.W Bhopal, District Bhopal, for offences under sections 420,467,468,471,472,474 read with section 120B of IPC.
2. The investigating agency is the Economic Offences Wing, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as the “EOW”). The applicant is around 58 years of age and is stated to be suffering from various medical ailments including sleep apnoea.
3. Briefly, the facts of this case are that one Rabiya Bi, the complainant along with others, registered the FIR against the applicant and other co-accused persons. The property in question is a piece of land admeasuring 93.37 acres situated in Village Singarcholi, Bhopal. The owner was one Faiz Mohammad who died leaving behind seven legal heirs. They are Mohammad Ayub, Mohammad Yakub, Hanifa Sultan, Asma Sultan, Sikandar Khan, Qamar Khan and Anwar Khan. Out of the total area of 93.37 acres, 54 acres was demarcated for residential purpose while the remaining, approximately 39 acres was kept aside for agricultural purpose.
4. With the exception of Mohammad Yakub, the remaining six legal heirs of Faiz Mohammad jointly executed a power of attorney dated 17.1.1989 and transferred all their rights in the aforesaid property to the power of attorney holder Mohammad Sharif (the then President of Tilak Grah Nirman Society). Similarly, Mohammad Yakub also executed a power of attorney on 5.8.1989 transferring all his rights in the aforesaid property in favour of power of attorney holder Mohammad Sharif. Thus, Mohammad Sharif became the power of attorney holder for six of the legal heirs by way of power of attorney dated 17.1.1989 and also the power of attorney holder for Mohammad Yakub vide power of attorney dated 5.8.1989. On the basis of the combined power of attorney given by the six legal heirs, Mohammad Sharif sold 34 acres of agricultural land through 12 registered sale deeds, executed in favour of various individuals between 4.2.1989 and 26.6.1989. On the basis of the power of attorney executed by Mohammad Yakub, Mohammad Sharif sold the remaining agricultural land of five acres and 64 decimals to Tilak Grah Nirman Samity vide 11 registered sale deeds and the same was executed between 15.11.1994 and 23.11.1994. Besides the power of attorney mentioned hereinabove, all the 7 legal heirs of Faiz Mohammad executed 7 different power of attorneys in favour Mohammad Sharif between February and 3 March 1990 vesting the rights of remaining the 54 acres of land in favour of Mohammad Sharif, the power of attorney holder.
5. On the strength of the 7 power of attorneys executed between February and March 1990, the remaining land of 54 acres was also sold to Tilak Grah Nirman Samiti by 14 registered sale deeds executed in the year 1997 and Tilak Grah Nirman Samiti further sold the land to 1500 persons.
6. In the FIR dated 7.2.2020, it has been alleged by the complainants that Mohammad Sharif had executed the power of attorney dated 17.1.1989 without the knowledge of the 6 legal heirs or the ancestor of the complainants and altered the remaining paragraphs of the power of attorney and thereby committed forgery.
7. In the FIR, it was also alleged that Mohammad Sharif, in connivance with other accused persons, executed various sale deeds in favour of his family members and friends between 4.2.1989 to 26.6.1989. The applicant Zarina Begum was one of the beneficiaries. It is for this alleged offence that was committed thirty-one years ago, that the applicant is sought to be arrested today.
8. In a connected case arising from the same FIR, being MCrC No. 26706/2020 (Colonel Bhupendra Singh Kharayat v. State of Madhya Pradesh), this Court had granted the benefit of bail to the 78 year old retired Colonel who was picked up from his home by the investigating agency for the same offence f
SupremeToday
(1) Bail has to be considered on acceptable legal parameters – It confers adequate discretion on Court to consider enlargement on bail of which unreasonable delay is one of grounds.(2) Arrest and bai....
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that must be justified by circumstances, balancing the rights of the accused against the interests of justice and effective investigation.
The court emphasized the constitutional right to timely bail hearings, mandating that bail applications be resolved within two weeks, aligning with the principles of justice and the presumption of in....
(1) Anticipatory bail – Court which grants anticipatory bail must take care to specify offence or offences in respect of which alone order will be effective – Blanket order of anticipatory bail is bo....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail, the importance of reasons for granting bail, and the duty to accord reasons ....
Prolonged pre-trial detention violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21, necessitating bail for the accused.
The court ruled that an accused charged without prior arrest may appear and secure release by furnishing a bail bond, with no requirement for anticipatory bail, aligning with precedents that protect ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
